They are complex structures with relatively distant and co-dependent systems that must all function in perfect harmony just to achieve homeostasis (google it if you don't know what that is). Now, that same very complex structure able to react to it's surroundings and internal conditions to achieve reproduction of just a copy of itself is amazingly complex. To achieve reproduction of a genetically individual, but like organism is even more amazing.

So, knowing that, really asks more questions than it answers. Throwing bowls full of primordial goop on the floor will not make "life".

Think about it for a while.

Remember the other day I mentioned Ben Stein and his propaganda film? This is it. Ben Stein is a liar, and can not be trusted.

__________________
Some people want freedom, even for those they disagree with, and some don't.To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

Nope, not at all. It's not very likely that Steveksux really knows steve case.

But can we agree that there was a moment, when life as we know it, cellular life, existed on earth, and did not the moment prior.

That moment, something interesting happened. Something rather profound really. I have no friggin' idea how that happened, but it was obviously not a simple process. It was either brought here, just happened, or was designed, or just nudged along, and many other possible mixtures of different theories.

The fact is that we really don't know how life first arrive on earth. A lot of people wished they knew, me included. Many more believe they know. That's where you start running into trouble. There are some guys, steve for instance, that are so sure they know that life just happened without any outside influence, and has no flippin' clue on how to explain how he believes that without knowing. But he's got plenty of jokes, ad homs, strawman arguments etc. Most of that is just evidence of him not liking his religious beliefs questioned.

So, maybe there weren't other mystical creatures. But I have no problems with understanding how people arrived at those beliefs. Dragon's for instance. Komodo dragons exist. Dinosaur bones might make people consider that dragons exist.

Of course as people learn more, they realize what they know, and on occasion, the smart ones realize what they really don't know. I've noticed that many people are hesitant to admit their own ignorance, even when an overabundance of ignorance is present.

Remember the other day I mentioned Ben Stein and his propaganda film? This is it. Ben Stein is a liar, and can not be trusted.

Ben Stein is a media guy. But, he underestimates the complexity of cellular mechanical and chemical function. The video is simplistic beyond description, and also light years ahead of what was believed about cells in Darwin's time. I'm not saying that Stein is right, I'm saying that intelligent design is at least possible. So is natural phenomena.

__________________
Some people want freedom, even for those they disagree with, and some don't.To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

I am conflicted. There was a time, when if you crossed a line, and did something completely rude, it was perfectly OK for some rightfully offended fellow to punch you right in the nose. And when you whined to a cop about it, he kicked you in the ass and told you to get out of town.

I often wonder if things are better or worse because those days are gone. It's probably a mix. There are probably several dozen people that have been spared a beating they did not deserve, and thousands that have been spared a beating they deserved. So I don't know whether we are better off or not.

ID is simply another claim about how life began. Yes, there are some theists that argue that ID is a scientific claim. If that seals the deal, lets use that same logic in another way.

No, Cavalry Doc. You are missing the point. This is not 'some theists' claiming ID is a scientific claim, while 'other theists' claim it is a religious one.

This is particular theists (the discovery institute) claiming ID is a scientific claim, and not religion, in one context, while those very same theists (the discovery institute) are turning around and supporting a lawsuit whose very basis requires that ID not be a scientific claim, but a religious one.

They are trying to have it both ways at the same time. Do you understand?

__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

Ben Stein is a media guy. But, he underestimates the complexity of cellular mechanical and chemical function. The video is simplistic beyond description, and also light years ahead of what was believed about cells in Darwin's time. I'm not saying that Stein is right,
...

I only watched enough of the video to verify that it was him.

I'll take you word for it. You know more about then I do anyway.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cavalry Doc

...
I'm saying that intelligent design is at least possible. So is natural phenomena.

I don't think many would disagree with that.

There is a video of Richard Dawkins and PZ Meyers (sp?) talking about their experience being interviewed for the movie, and being kicked off the property of the premier. I'll see if I can find it.

__________________
Some people want freedom, even for those they disagree with, and some don't.To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

I am conflicted. There was a time, when if you crossed a line, and did something completely rude, it was perfectly OK for some rightfully offended fellow to punch you right in the nose. And when you whined to a cop about it, he kicked you in the ass and told you to get out of town.

I often wonder if things are better or worse because those days are gone. It's probably a mix. There are probably several dozen people that have been spared a beating they did not deserve, and thousands that have been spared a beating they deserved. So I don't know whether we are better off or not.

That is a good point. Being the libertarian that I am, harassing someone on public (sidewalk, street) or a disinterested 3rd party's property, should not be against the law. Punching the guy should be.

Now when the Hotel employee told the guy to stop, you either stop or leave the property.

__________________
Some people want freedom, even for those they disagree with, and some don't.To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

No, Cavalry Doc. You are missing the point. This is not 'some theists' claiming ID is a scientific claim, while 'other theists' claim it is a religious one.

This is particular theists (the discovery institute) claiming ID is a scientific claim, and not religion, while those very same theists (the discovery institute) are turning around and supporting a lawsuit whose very basis requires that ID not be a scientific claim, but a religious one.

They are trying to have it both ways at the same time. Do you understand?

OK. I totally get your point. I'll concede that some high falootin' "THE DISCOVERY INSTITUTE" guys claimed that ID is a scientific claim. The matter is settled.

So, if you are going to argue that I should agree with everyone that does not agree with you, and use the same arguments, would you mind getting back to me just as soon as you inform all of the GTRI participants that the issue is settled, and that they must submit to the opinion that Atheism is a Religion. After all, some official sounding people agree with it.

Be sure to get back to me as soon as you have received complete consensus on that, or at least post a link to you trying that, it would be comical.

That is a good point. Being the libertarian that I am, harassing someone on public (sidewalk, street) or a disinterested 3rd party's property, should not be against the law. Punching the guy should be.

Now when the Hotel employee told the guy to stop, you either stop or leave the property.

Being a libertarian leaning conservative. I believe that it should be legal to speak your mind, even if it is offensive. I also believe you should shut the ef up and take a well deserved beating by a rightfully offended fellow if 12 normal people agree you got what you deserved.

One should be responsible for what they do. They should also expect others to act accordingly to their affronts if they commit one. True responsible liberty means going out of your way to not infringe on the liberty of others. Once you allow anyone to do anything without consequences, you've crossed into anarchy. At that point we are wild animals. Might is right, and to the conqueror go the spoils.

You have to balance that sort of stuff. It's hard to draw a straight line on that kind of stuff. I have punched someone that richly deserved it, and didn't get in trouble for it. I have watched someone punch someone that didn't deserve it, and get away with it...... (for a while).

You should know quite well by now that it is my position that while it is *possible* for some people approach their own atheism in a religious manner, that does not require all atheists to do so. If there were a 'First Church of Golf' that would not make all golfers religious.

And if you'd read your own link, you'd know "the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all."

The court did not rule atheism was a religion. It ruled that it had to be treated equivalently for First Amendment purposes, not that it met a common definition of religion, which is a distinction that you apparently are completely unable to make (although, as evidenced in the link you provided, the court was. Legal definitions do not have to match reality. The EPA definition of 'solid waste' is such that solids, liquids, and gases can meet the definition - that does not mean that when someone talks about solids on a message board, they mean gases, too)

__________________
"The human mind is seldom satisfied, and is not justifiable by any natural process whatsoever, as regards geometry, our universe differs only slightly from a long-term, bi-directional, single trait selection experiment." -- Maxwell/Einstein/Johansson

__________________
Some people want freedom, even for those they disagree with, and some don't.To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 signatures.

You should know quite well by now that it is my position that while it is *possible* for some people approach their own atheism in a religious manner, that does not require all atheists to do so.

And if you'd read your own link, you'd know "the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all."

The court did not rule atheism was a religion. It ruled that it had to be treated equivalently for First Amendment purposes, not that it met a common definition of religion, which is a distinction that you apparently are completely unable to make (although, as evidenced in the link you provided, the court was. Legal definitions do not have to match reality. The EPA definition of 'solid waste' is such that solids, liquids, and gases can meet the definition - that does not mean that when someone talks about solids on a message board, they mean gases, too.

The issue is that you are trying to argue that because some people that you don't agree with use a certain argument, that I need to subscribe to it also.

So, when you achieve complete consensus that Atheism Is a Religion in GTRI, I'll go with your argument. Cherry picking from the courts finding is no better than cherry picking from any other opinion you don't agree with that is not mine.

Until then, I'll have my own opinion, even if it disagrees with some people that agree with me on certain positions. I'll agree that as far as the Constitution goes, it guarantees freedom of religion. I understand how some believe that the constitution guarantees freedom FROM religion, but I don't agree.

In the nicest way I can say it, when you want to debate, debate with the fellow you are conversing with, not some other guy you heard about once upon a time......

You should know quite well by now that it is my position that while it is *possible* for some people approach their own atheism in a religious manner, that does not require all atheists to do so. If there were a 'First Church of Golf' that would not make all golfers religious.

And if you'd read your own link, you'd know "the Court has unambiguously concluded that the individual freedom of conscience protected by the First Amendment embraces the right to select any religious faith or none at all."

The court did not rule atheism was a religion. It ruled that it had to be treated equivalently for First Amendment purposes, not that it met a common definition of religion, which is a distinction that you apparently are completely unable to make (although, as evidenced in the link you provided, the court was. Legal definitions do not have to match reality. The EPA definition of 'solid waste' is such that solids, liquids, and gases can meet the definition - that does not mean that when someone talks about solids on a message board, they mean gases, too)

That point has been made before here. It may even have been made in that locked thread.

Oh dear. I would certainly not agree with him being discouraged from watching the video. That's wrong, and you can gripe at the guy who did that all day long with my permission, if you can find him.....

The film of the complexity of the cell, is actually rather simple, when you really understand what is happening in every cell in your body.

The little swipes and odd offenses mentioned in the clip you've posted taken do illustrate a oppositional stance.

I'm just about as equally offended by the creationists as I am the randomists, both sides seem to have their religious zealots. Both sides seem to have an unhealthy amount of close mindedness.

That point has been made before here. It may even have been made in that locked thread.

Point is, because some theists have made an argument, I should not be held to their reasoning (or lack thereof), any more than all atheists should have to agree that atheism is a religion because it has a church, or a legal finding in that direction, or an agnostic that realizes that it's true.....

Either way, I will not hold him responsible for the arguments of others, and am asking him do show me the same courtesy, or get all of the atheists to admit atheism is a religion, whichever happens first, I'm OK with it.